The norms are different

If all those who speak, write, express their views have to respect all religious sensitivities, then what can anyone say? Some religious group is likely to be offended by almost any expression of a view. Does the UN want to stop us watching The Life of Brian, Jerry Springer the Opera, etc? Will atheists have to keep quiet about their beliefs for fear of offending religious sensitivities?

Why should religion be off limits? On what basis is someone going to say: don’t speak bad about my religion? Does this mean that Mr. Ki-moon accepts and respects, the right of countries where sharia law is the norm, to kill anyone who tries to convert to Christianity? He must! He obviously can’t speak against it, since that would amount to not respecting the religious beliefs of those people.

I haven’t found anyone talking about not being rude to people at the dinner table. Perhaps they don’t think that’s relevant.

Good, because it’s not. It’s a category mistake to think it is. The norms are different; the customs are different. Ban Ki-moon wasn’t talking about the dinner table, he was talking about free expression, which means public discourse: books, journalism, media, debate, political campaigning. If a friend rebukes another friend for being rude, it is nonsensical to reply ‘I have a right to free expression!’ Of course you do, but that’s not the point. By the same token, if someone writes a book, it is nonsensical for a reader to complain that the book is impolite. Readers don’t get to demand that all books (and all newspapers, all magazines, all tv shows, all songs, all cartoons, all everything) be polite to them personally. That’s not what books are for. It is what personal relations are for (broadly speaking); it is not what books are for.

Related posts

7 Responses to “The norms are different”

Totally with you on the “it’s not about rudeness”-thing. I also agree that they are not to expect respect.

Nevertheless, I’d ask you to go easy on Banki here. Banki represents something; & that something (whether we like it or not) integrates nations respecting just themselves. Sure, he can shut up on the matter alltogether & maybe he should’ve but if he says anything he’s restricted by what he represents. That too is what is rational is about.

The real problem is not Banki, the real problem is that there is at least 1 – & maybe 2 – permanent members that’d veto a more ambitious UN defense of ‘freedom of speech’. Both of them are ‘Western’.

JoB, I don’t really care about Ban himself, I care about what he said. I’m sure he said it for some UNish reason, and I don’t want to see him sent to his room or anything. I just want to disrespect the content of what he said.

Fair enough but the ‘some UNish reason’ is more relevant than what he said when you disagree about what he said. It’s a bit too easy to condemn medievalists of distant lands without talking about the silent support in our own lands – those prone to caricature are not the only to disrespect.

JoB – There was no requirement for Sec-Gen Moon to say ANYTHING regarding “freedom of expression”. He actively CHOSE to do so, in, as you say, his extremely significant role at the UN.

That’s why what he said is such a problem. It doesn’t matter what constraints there are on his personal views – he knows full well exactly what he represents, and that’s why what he said (and not someone else’s rose-tinted personal interpretation of his words) is so dangerous.

These last few posts have brought to light an interesting “don’t rock the boat” tendency in some of the comments…

I was just wondering this morning what America might be like if it hadn’t been for some of its more prominent “boat-rockers”…?

Andy, you’re quite welcome to rock the boat, even my boat, but I said that he should have shut up so, please, do not associate me with the non-boat-rockers as you seem to do. My question is just as relevant if Banki should’ve shut up, & did, rather than should’ve shut up, & didn’t.

After all it’s not very rational to ask a secretary general to shut up when one has good reasons for him to speak out – differently than he actually did. It is exactly the AngloSaxon non-boat-rocking responsibles that are the issue here.